I don't know if these people are journalists or bloggers but, whatever they are, their output on this subject does them no favours. They base their positions on several factual inaccuracies, refuse to revise their claims and insult anyone who challenges the claims. But there is a bigger problem than their loose attachment to fact. They have recently shifted the focus of their outrage from City's financial misdeeds to City's association with human rights abuses. Concern for human suffering is praiseworthy but do they really believe that a football team has any influence on an armed conflict or on a country's customs and more sinister ways? What's the point in attaching a football team's name to these problems? It isn't going to ease the pain of starving children, it isn't going to liberate political prisoners, it isn't going to change a country's attitude to homosexuality. So what's the point? What change do they think this approach can bring about in the Middle East? If they succeeded in driving ADUG out of English football, or City fans away from their team, the issues they've raised will still remain. The whole exercise seems pointless. But what damns them in my eyes is their willingness to see the Twitter debate they generate degenerate into name calling by fans of different football teams. Why do the authors participate in the trivialization of the serious issues they claim to be addressing? I can only draw the conclusions that their motives are not honest and that they don't really give a shit about starving children and political prisoners or that they are such insignificant names in their chosen profession that the only way they can get attention is to attach a famous football team's name to their product.